home

Obama Congratulates Hillary for Her Win in Indiana

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:15:44 PM EST
Tags: North Carolina '08, Indana '08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Of course, he said her "apparent" win, but I think it was a concession.

Is anyone watching Obama? He's speakng now.

9:41 pm: Indiana vote: Almost 950,000 votes in, Hillary has 52%, Obama 48%. Fox and CNN still have not called it.

Comments now closed, new threads are up.

< New Elections Thread, CBS Calls Indiana for Hillary | Brazile vs. Begala on CNN: Brazile's Blowout >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Congratulates Hillary for Her Win in Indiana | 261 comments (261 topical)
    Unless he's changed anything I'll pass (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:17:30 PM EST
    I never liked church.
    Truly, it isn't churchish this time (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:19:49 PM EST
    He's leaving the preaching sync style out.  I have to give him some credit here.

    [ Parent ]
    Well good for him (4.50 / 2) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:22:22 PM EST
    Still not in the mood.


    [ Parent ]
    The only thing I'd give him (3.66 / 3) (#116)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:49:44 PM EST
    is the finger...just returning the favor he did to Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, a statesman moment (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:18:18 PM EST
    I was stunned but it was a pleasant stunned.  He just keeps saying nice things too and even good things about the race and the Democratic party.  Extremely statesmanesque!

    Make-up sex! (none / 0) (#83)
    by lambert on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:43:47 PM EST
    Always something to look forward to.

    [ Parent ]
    I hate make up sex (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:02:37 PM EST
    It relies a lot upon returning to the fantasy that we were once truly in love and we can revisit that bliss.  I'd rather have a chocolate ;)  It doesn't get you pregnant.

    [ Parent ]
    He Always Was (none / 0) (#94)
    by creeper on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:44:59 PM EST
    good with words.

    [ Parent ]
    Im watching (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Chisoxy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:18:29 PM EST
    ..Ive gagged about 3 times so far.

    gaggin...and gaggin. (3.66 / 3) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:20:30 PM EST
    He is such a lie.  

    [ Parent ]
    Hahahahahahahahaha (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by stefystef on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:47:57 PM EST
    don't puke!  You will have to listen to preachy Obama for the next several months.

    Me?  If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, I"m dropping out of the Democratic Party.  I'm tired of the mediocrity and snobbery being passed off as good politics.

    Enjoy the speech, I can't listen to him anymore.

    [ Parent ]

    Stellaaa, I love you (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:22:41 PM EST
    And Hillary's my girl.  Put they're politicians and that makes them ALL liars at some point and usually at many points on a timeline.

    [ Parent ]
    I just cannot vote for him (4.66 / 3) (#27)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:24:30 PM EST
    I know way too much about his so called creds as a community organizer.  He truly repulses me.  

    [ Parent ]
    He's truly "gamed the system" (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by NotThatStupid on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:05:29 PM EST
    That phrase that he used at one of the early debates,  regarding how people could exploit the loopholes in his (non-universal) health care plan, pretty much sums up his approach to winning the nomination: Win the red states that will be unwinnable in the GE, game the caucus process where possible, and ratchet up the AA vote by unjustly tarring Senator Clinton with the "racist" brush.

    The thought of anyone winning 90%+ of any significant demographic - I don't care which, be it AAs, whites, hispanics, or okra lovers - is obscene in a democracy.

    Lucky for the Republicans their campaign does not rely on AA support.

    After hearing the remarks of Brazille and her ilk writing off the working class tonight, it looks like I'll be voting for the most qualified candidate in the Fall, and not Senator Obama.


    [ Parent ]

    what about the community (none / 0) (#49)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:34:19 PM EST
    organizing?!!

    [ Parent ]
    Community organizer (4.87 / 8) (#57)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:36:30 PM EST
    would never, ever have taken the side of Rezko and let the affordable housing go under.  I think he is an opportunist who stands for nothing.  If he cannot save some housing in his district in the name of self interest, money from Rezko, he is a fraud.  

    [ Parent ]
    oh well, yeah.. that's exactly right; however (none / 0) (#67)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:39:11 PM EST
    it's not an argument that will reach many voters.

    [ Parent ]
    that is why for me it's personal (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:40:10 PM EST
    affordable housing has been my life's work.  So, to see a false narrative using community organizing.  

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, well, there are so many false (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:47:05 PM EST
    narratives to choose from, when it comes to Obama's autobiography. Embarrasse de riches.

    [ Parent ]
    I read that his community organizing amounted (4.50 / 2) (#117)
    by derridog on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:49:46 PM EST
    to nothing but doing a voter registration drive for a church.  Does anyone know anything about this?  

    Someone asked once --where are all the people who worked with Obama when he was being a "community organizer?" Why aren't they out there speaking up about how great he was?

    I think he is a total fraud.

    [ Parent ]

    It will when the GOP gets to work. Heh. nt (none / 0) (#138)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:54:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    obama takes it to a whole new level. (3.66 / 3) (#60)
    by kangeroo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:36:57 PM EST
    it's pathological.

    [ Parent ]
    he should of just said 5 mins speech. (none / 0) (#89)
    by thereyougo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:44:25 PM EST
    why did he go on and on....like he got the nom?

    He's still behind likeHillary just a bit ahead.

    [ Parent ]

    Because he can't get enough of his own voice (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:02:40 PM EST
    whichever one he's using: preacher-man, street-smart guy, or harvard-grad.

    [ Parent ]
    He's a "prof" (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Cream City on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:08:08 PM EST
    and classes are 50 minutes, minimum.

    Be glad he apparently doesn't teach 75 minute classes -- or 3 hour classes.:-)

    [ Parent ]

    He's a (prof)essional untruth teller who has (4.00 / 1) (#228)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:16:43 PM EST
    bamboozled a large portion of a certain segment of the electorate.

    [ Parent ]
    Indiana republicans reasons for supporting Obama (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Left of center on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:18:59 PM EST
    very interesting article.
    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/06/republicans_give_mixed_reasons.html

    Lopsided Coverage (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Athena on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:19:14 PM EST
    I'm tired of coverage that overrewards Obama and undercredits Clinton.

    I can't watch more change either.  It's so much "change" it's predictable.

    I am now living in a parallel universe (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:03:58 PM EST
    where I watch Fox to get fair and balanced reporting.  They crap on both Barack and Hillary, but at least it's fair.

    [ Parent ]
    I think his speech (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by bjorn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:21:08 PM EST
    was more of the same...not impressed so far. He won't have me until he finally embraces the Clinton legacy.

    Yeah, he needs to come clean there (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:24:31 PM EST
    to really be credible while saying complimentary Clintonish things.  He took a B.S. dump on that one!

    [ Parent ]
    It's a pattern with his whole team (none / 0) (#124)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:51:01 PM EST
    They must think acknowledging the Clinton administrations great successes would constitute campaigning for Hillary.

    They needed to find a way to do just that, in my opinion. He could get people thinking that Reagan was the last great administration and be accused of campaigning for McCain.


    [ Parent ]

    He can't. (none / 0) (#194)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:06:35 PM EST
    Even if he could make his mouth form the words, they would be so completely insincere.  

    I will be switching my registration to Independent.  This party no longer represents me.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama did say "some say" other's (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by jawbone on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:22:03 PM EST
    suppoters won't vote for the eventual winner, but, he said, he doesn't believe that.

    Of course, he's the one who raised that issue! Saying her voters would come to him, but he wasn't sure his voters would support her.

    OK.

    Let's rewrite history.

    HRC has unambiguously (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by litigatormom on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:24:49 PM EST
    said, time after time, that she will support and campaign for Obama if he is the nominee.

    Obama has never been that unambiguous, not once. He says "I'll work for Democrats," or "we'll come together after the nomination is settled."  Not, "I, Barack Obama, will support Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee."

    Or have I missed that?

    [ Parent ]

    He has said (once that I know of) that (none / 0) (#104)
    by nycstray on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:46:59 PM EST
    he would support her nomination, but has never said work or campaign to my knowledge. Most of the time, when he talks party unity, it sounds like he's been told to. Not from the heart like her. He's just not that into the Dem Party as it was.

    [ Parent ]
    He is a Democrat because that is the party (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:03:24 PM EST
    that a black man can get ahead in. He is a Democrat because that is where the patronage in Chicago is. He is not a Democrat out of conviction but out of self-interest.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup. And I hate to say it, but (none / 0) (#209)
    by nycstray on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:11:19 PM EST
    if he's the nom, I hope he loses. He'll end up being a puppet president. And an unmotivated one at that.

    [ Parent ]
    hypocrite. (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by TalkRight on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:50:54 PM EST
    He is such a double talk..

    You can see him talking more "I love America" -- Tells me he thinks he is vulnerable on that note

    You see him talk about Unity (after talking first snipe that Hillary supporters will support him) -- Tells me he fears he has alienated Hillary Clinton supporters.

    In his speech talks more directly to super delegates.. -- Tells me he does feel the last battle will be fought with SD.

    NC results tells me that the Jim Clayburn's divisive talk helped him there..

    Not sure why but the more I see him and hear him, the mOre I hate him... I just can't take his unity shtick -- He can count me out in November.
     give Hillary a boost.. donate

    [ Parent ]

    CNN Showed a Poll on that tonight (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:56:06 PM EST
    A very high percentage of Clinton supporters say the will not vote for him.

    I know I won't, and I also know I will not change my mind on that.  I can handle political rhetoric/lying, and even an embellished story or two for effect, but he lied openly, and continues to lie about who he is, the life his had led, the people he owes big favors to, and he refuses to tell us what it is he thinks he is going to change. He's the most negative democratic candidate I can remember.


    [ Parent ]

    HRC has unambiguously (none / 0) (#31)
    by litigatormom on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:25:00 PM EST
    said, time after time, that she will support and campaign for Obama if he is the nominee.

    Obama has never been that unambiguous, not once. He says "I'll work for Democrats," or "we'll come together after the nomination is settled."  Not, "I, Barack Obama, will support Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee."

    Or have I missed that?

    [ Parent ]

    You missed nothing (none / 0) (#121)
    by stefystef on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:50:37 PM EST
    Obama never had any intention on working with Hillary at all.

    I can't wait for him to crash and burn in November.  Honestly, a society get the leadership/government it deserves.  At this point, we deserve McCain because obviously the Dems have learned nothing from 2000 (Gore) and 2004 (Kerry).

    MI and FL will go republican and I will never give a dime to the DNC ever again.  And I know I'm not alone in this.

    [ Parent ]

    This is funny (3.66 / 3) (#141)
    by dissenter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:54:46 PM EST
    About an hour ago I wrote an email to the DNC on the Brazille comments. The Dem Party just called for my mother. She lives with us. I told them she was no longer part of the party - being blue collar and all - and to never call back.

    I'm not sure if they wanted money or volunteers but they will get neither, or democratic presidential votes, out of this house.

    It felt good

    [ Parent ]

    GOOD FOR YOU!!!!! :) (none / 0) (#199)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:09:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I would LOVE (none / 0) (#220)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:14:25 PM EST
    a call like that.  I would have said the exact same thing.  GOOD 4 U!

    [ Parent ]
    HRC has unambiguously (none / 0) (#32)
    by litigatormom on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:25:02 PM EST
    said, time after time, that she will support and campaign for Obama if he is the nominee.

    Obama has never been that unambiguous, not once. He says "I'll work for Democrats," or "we'll come together after the nomination is settled."  Not, "I, Barack Obama, will support Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee."

    Or have I missed that?

    [ Parent ]

    Counting today (none / 0) (#63)
    by wasabi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:38:09 PM EST
    I've heard him say it 3 times.  Is that many?

    [ Parent ]
    Said the party would come together? (none / 0) (#113)
    by nycstray on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:49:18 PM EST
    How? Magically? Or will he 'work his heart out for the dem nom' like Hillary has passionately stated over and over?

    [ Parent ]
    I liked the old days... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by citizen53 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:22:08 PM EST
    when a victory speech was not something pre-prepared and delivered by teleprompter.

    It seems artificial.

    It Is Artificial...That's obama In A Word....Look (none / 0) (#235)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:19:40 PM EST
    at him all smiles...didn't look that chipper a few days ago.  I still am not counting Hillary out.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama just claimed that he (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by litigatormom on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:22:41 PM EST
    is now only 200 delegates from the nomination.

    I am assuming that he thinks he will clinch the nomination at 2025.  That number, of course, completely and permanently disenfranchises MI and FLA. If Obama plans to claim a legitimate win, counting FLA and MI, he needs help resolve that issue before he claims victory, or he needs to reach the real magic number, 2209.

    This issue is critical, and has to get out into the MSM, which is still talking about seating MI and FLA as if it is something that can occur after Obama has claimed the nomination with only 2025.  

    He's just tryng to win... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Virginian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:41:27 PM EST
    Obama is tired...and doesn't think he can hang in for 12 rounds, so he's saying "if I'm up on points in the 10th round, I am the winner...no point in the counting the other two rounds, 10 is enough"

    [ Parent ]
    And a speech (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:00:34 PM EST
    on racism was supposed to shut us all up on the Rev Wright relationship, and a trip to the Chicago Tribune to give them EVERYTHING on Rezko was supposed to stop that topic from being investigated further.

    I do not believe this primary season has been conducted without very questionable bullying tactics, and it was all on Obama's side.

    [ Parent ]

    This is his new thing (4.00 / 1) (#45)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:32:15 PM EST
    They have started the delegate countdown.  They have been pushing it on their site apparently and pushing at the media to cover them counting down.  Seems anticlimatic to me, but eh, I'm not voting for the guy, so what do I know.

    [ Parent ]
    Big speech (5.00 / 10) (#22)
    by Left of center on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:22:55 PM EST
    "Now is the time for change, we are going to change the things that need changing while changing the things that change while changing change. Yes we can, yes we can. Yes we can want to change that which is unchanga-YES WE CAN-ble while yes we can, yes we can. We can rebuild this nation, we have the technology, we can make it better, stronger, faster, changeable, yes we can. change change change."

    PFFT. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:26:12 PM EST
    You owe me a new keyboard.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think (none / 0) (#58)
    by BrandingIron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:36:33 PM EST

    he has enough change in his pocket after that comment.

    [ Parent ]
    Movement... Change... (4.83 / 6) (#52)
    by lambert on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:34:41 PM EST
    Why does the word "diapers" come to mind?

    [ Parent ]
    America is a big baby (none / 0) (#78)
    by Faust on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:42:44 PM EST
    and Obama is the nanny?

    [ Parent ]
    Or, flush (none / 0) (#167)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:01:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    yawner (none / 0) (#98)
    by thereyougo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:46:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He talked about party unity in the fall (5.00 / 13) (#23)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:23:02 PM EST
    Which is nice.

    I just wish I understood why it was necessary for Hillary to be utterly demeaned and smeared in order for Obama and his supporters to win. Why can't people support their favorite candidate without eviscerating a perfectly decent competitor?

    He had to (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by wasabi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:39:58 PM EST
    The only way he could get the nomination is by tearing down all things Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    The only way he could win was (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:49:48 PM EST
    by passively aggressively demolishing Bill Clinton.
    He also needed the press to assist this task.  


    [ Parent ]
    So, after the demolishing (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:52:21 PM EST
    Do you think he can repair all the bad feelings and pull out a win in the fall?

    I'm beginning to think he can. I think we're looking at President Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    No (4.33 / 6) (#134)
    by MichaelGale on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:53:49 PM EST
    If the Democrats do this, I am done.

    Good luck

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think he... (none / 0) (#224)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:16:16 PM EST
    ...can repair what he's done on live TV.

    No, not at all. Moderates won't forget those sorts of Stalinesque 90% returns.

    [ Parent ]

    it's one of the things i hate about (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by kangeroo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:00:30 PM EST
    obama.  clinton is about win-win; she wants to win, sure, but she's not rooting for obama to lose.  obama is completely zero-sum--not only must he win, but he craves and relishes her destruction.  he seriously disgusts me.

    [ Parent ]
    Why is the Democratic Party allowing it? (none / 0) (#222)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:15:48 PM EST
    The DNC, and all the democrats in office could put a stop to it just by publicly speaking out.

    But Kennedy, Dean, and Kerry all were presidential hopefuls who couldn't win, do they won't use their seniority to call for investigations where they should be conducted, or the dirty tactics being employed by Obama. They sure aren't going to tolerate both Clinton's getting the presidency when they couldn't have it.


    [ Parent ]

    I think to be a game-changer tonight (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by madamab on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:27:00 PM EST
    each candidate would have to perform above expectations. In other words, Obama would have to win both states or HRC would have to win both states.

    Neither has happened. We'll have to see what the margin of victory is in NC for Obama, but there's no way it will be 20 points.

    Again... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by lilburro on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:28:00 PM EST
    I don't like the role healthcare plays in his speeches.  "Healthcare when you need it."  Some people need it, desperately, now.  Clinton needs to stay in so he's forced to adapt some of her positions.  

    Also, congrats on winning IN, Clinton!  Obama's backyard!  Haven't been hearing that phrase on TV much though...wonder why?  Hmmm.

    Ugh. (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Danbury on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:33:34 PM EST
     I don't think I can watch four months, let alone four years, of Barack Obama. He's too smug for me. What a fraud.  Dems have bought a good load of snake oil on this one.

    Don't Worry (5.00 / 8) (#53)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:35:05 PM EST
    You won't have to watch four years.

    [ Parent ]
    Not dems... (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Virginian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:43:18 PM EST
    he got here on the backs of Republicans for a day and latte-libertarians...

    [ Parent ]
    Yes indeed! Agree to disagree! (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by felizarte on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:44:13 PM EST
    He sounds insincere; false humility is the worst kind of arrogance.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep...humble and sincere (5.00 / 7) (#87)
    by Virginian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:44:17 PM EST
    like Dubya...

    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention, he's a uniter not a divider. (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by derridog on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:53:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Both seem to me to be (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Virginian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:55:13 PM EST
    petulant too

    [ Parent ]
    wonderful speech (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:34:27 PM EST
    Good for him.  He looks and sounds presidential.

    of course... (none / 0) (#66)
    by americanincanada on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:39:07 PM EST
    he stole quite a lot of that speech from her stump speech.

    [ Parent ]
    CoOpt (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Faust on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:43:29 PM EST
    and overcome.

    [ Parent ]
    That's how he's gotten all his policies (none / 0) (#205)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:10:36 PM EST
    as well.

    This is exactly why he refused to debate in NC, too.

    [ Parent ]

    Craig Crawford said (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by Iphie on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:34:30 PM EST
    that he has spoken to SDs who believe that even if Obama loses the election, it will still be good for Democrats, because he is the future of the Democratic Party.

    Excuse me? There are SDs who have actually said out loud that it's okay if Obama loses? And their view of the Democratic Party of the future is based on a losing presidential election! I am dumbfounded, perhaps he misspoke, but I'm having such a hard time imagining it to be true.

    yes, the party must be taken away from the (5.00 / 8) (#56)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:36:07 PM EST
    Clintons ... at ANY COST.

    [ Parent ]
    I believe it (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by otherlisa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:38:23 PM EST
    Fits in only too well with what we know to be true - that Obama's chances of winning the general election are not very good.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:41:16 PM EST
    They underestimate the extent to which a bad loss would be demoralizing for the party.  It's not as though McGovern's voters became the base of a decades-long Democratic majority.

    If Obama wins in November, awesome.  If he doesn't, the bloodletting will be like nothing in my memory.

    [ Parent ]

    What I don't understand is (5.00 / 0) (#248)
    by Nadai on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:25:27 PM EST
    if Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, etc. all back the man who loses, after 8 years of Bush for the love of God, how can they believe that they'll be the ones to survive the bloodbath instead of the Clintons?  Did they all get really good fortunes the last time they went out for Chinese food?

    [ Parent ]
    After 7 1/2 (none / 0) (#204)
    by Iphie on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:10:22 PM EST
    years of Bush, I didn't think I could be any more demoralized.

    [ Parent ]
    I imagine they've seen that big pile (5.00 / 9) (#79)
    by RalphB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:43:01 PM EST
    of money he's raised this cycle.  Personally, I think it's the end of the democratic party as we've known it.  If he's the empty suited future of the democrats, they deserve to lose for a generation.


    [ Parent ]
    Only Democrats would see a loss as a (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by tigercourse on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:44:34 PM EST
    victory. I wouldn't want to be on the DNC's softball team.

    [ Parent ]
    Why not (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Virginian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:49:43 PM EST
    0-10 and still get trophies?! come-on! Everyone wants honorable mention
    /snark

    [ Parent ]
    T-Ball... (none / 0) (#219)
    by white n az on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:13:45 PM EST
    everybody gets a trophy

    [ Parent ]
    HE is the future?? (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:44:47 PM EST
    The deification continues. And these are professional politicians? They know that if he loses in the fall he has no future. If he goes down with McGovern numbers the party may have no future.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, great. (5.00 / 6) (#100)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:46:33 PM EST
    No wonder we keep losing.

    [ Parent ]
    Good for the (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:46:45 PM EST
    politicians of the Dem party.  Voters will flail around trying to find a platform.  Both parties have imploded at the same time.  There is nothing better for them.  Who are you going to vote for?  Won't matter.  One big clusterf^ck of govt where policy and the people are thrown under the bus.

    The elite conservatives have the Repub party, the elite liberals have the Dem party.... looks like it's politics as usual to me.  The working class get shoved aside again. sigh.  I was hoping that this time around, the average every day person would actually get a voice.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Dr Molly on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:48:40 PM EST
    I see that comment all the time on the Obama blogs - "I'd rather lose with Obama than win with Hillary."

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Iphie on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:04:13 PM EST
    but I assumed that amongst the party elders, cooler heads would prevail -- that after everything is said and done, they want to win.

    I sent an email to Craig Crawford asking if I heard him correctly, and if I did, are those SDs willing to go on the record with such statements? I know they're not, but if it's true that seems to me to be a story that needs a great deal more coverage.

    [ Parent ]

    It would depend on the next batch of candidates, (none / 0) (#74)
    by lilburro on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:41:30 PM EST
    no?  We've seen the blogosphere degenerate from issues to rationalizing every little thing Obama does.  I assume they're talking about young voters?  Whatever.  I don't buy it at all, except in the context of don't p#ss off the people that voted for Obama.  That I can buy and it does seem reasonable.  But let's keep voting.

    [ Parent ]
    For decades young voters (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Virginian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:49:00 PM EST
    show up for rallies, wear t-shirts and bumper stickers, hold meetings at student unions, and show up for MTV...but...BUT...they don't show up in November...

    This is true for both parties! the vaunted College Republicans really is a proving ground for the Roves, Norquists, Reeds, etc...not for mobilizing young people...we need to remember that...young people are great to have in your camp...but unreliable as a voting block...

    [ Parent ]

    why be scared of pissing them off? (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Virginian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:53:06 PM EST
    1. the young people probably won't vote in huge #s anyway

    2. the "wine-track" block is pissed off at everything anyway

    3. 70% of them say they'll vote for HRC anyway?

    What are people afraid of?!

    [ Parent ]
    Also, give them four more years and they'll have (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by derridog on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:55:24 PM EST
    more sense. Well, I don't know. That didn't work for Donna Brazille.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#97)
    by lambert on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:45:18 PM EST
    The "create our own reality" thing worked when we had the resources. Now we don't.

    [ Parent ]
    What do you mean about resources? (none / 0) (#189)
    by lilburro on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:05:03 PM EST
    My connection to this whole mess is believing strongly in Democratic ideals since I was a teen, then taking a job canvassing for 3 months for the DNC.  The canvassing was a good experience.  Really difficult though and not always fun...because it was all about raising the $$$!!!  I was canvassing for the 50 State Strategy in PA.  The netroots had no impact upon my work.  Maybe it had an impact upon the people I canvassed when I wasn't there, but for the most part I think it is Democratic ideas and platforms that have that impact.  And people basically know what those are.  The Brand.  But this was for the Congressional Elections in 2006.

    I wonder if the rather blah performance of the new Dem Congress will affect Obama's chances.  In some way, it seems like it's the reason he has adopted his style - to distance himself from the Congress of which he is a part.  But he's distanced himself from more than that Congress.  He's distanced himself from the Dem platform.  We have to take the number of Dems that say they won't vote for him more seriously.  Think about it - John McCain has been blah blahing about his "healthcare plan" which I'm sure is a squiggly on a piece of toilet paper.  But does Obama step up with something more tangible than that?  IMO, he does not.  Obama more or less attacks Congress now.  Do we think John McCain won't?  And that he won't have more leverage and more authority now that Congress is a Dem majority?  Argh!!  

    Often it just seems that with this election people are playing a game of Risk online.  Tell me again how we're going to conquer this state and that state in...6 months?  

    We'll see what happens, but Dem tunnel vision is still an issue.

    [ Parent ]

    Right now there's only (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:37:48 PM EST
    a 12% spread in NC.

    She lost Buncombe and Watauga counties (none / 0) (#71)
    by ChuckieTomato on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:40:14 PM EST
    Which is unbelievable. Most of his vote is in but I don't think she can pick up much more than 2-3 points. The spin has already been done though on TV when it was at +30 point lead

    [ Parent ]
    Both Buncombe and Watauga counties (none / 0) (#149)
    by derridog on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:56:36 PM EST
    have universities. The students are all fired up for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Both Buncombe and Watauga county (none / 0) (#151)
    by derridog on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:57:02 PM EST
    have universities. The students are all fired up for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    can't watch him either (5.00 / 7) (#68)
    by karen for Clinton on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:39:45 PM EST
    Last year I checked him out.

    By early January I decided on Hillary but figured I could hold my nose and vote for him.

    By mid January I wasn't sure what to do if he won I hated the idea of sitting it out and refuse to vote for McCain.

    By end January there was no doubt I didn't want to vote for him.

    Since then, no way no how, not ever, even if it means McCain will win, he will win in a landslide against Obama anyway so my vote wouldn't help.

    And the party doesn't deserve my vote anymore.

    32 years, hundreds of votes and this is the first time I have been not proud to be a democrat.

    Wait till I see the latest Brazille meltdown, they will lose me even more.

    Third party anyone?

    I believe (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by nell on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:46:50 PM EST
    Brazille had a slight meltdown on CNN tonight when Campbell Brown called her out on her "undeclared superdelegate" status and said you sound pretty decided to me, would you care to share? And Donna got mad and said I am undeclared, not undecided! How dishonest of Donna.

    And I feel no obligation to vote for Obama in November. Michelle Obama said she may or may not support Clinton in November depending on her "tone," and if the wife of the candidate can say that, then I can too. And I cannot stand his tone, I just cannot stand it. So, just like Michelle feels no obligation to support Clinton, I feel no obligation to support Obama. Too bad, so sad. Win without me. I don't care for him and as of late, I don't care too much for the Dem party.

    [ Parent ]

    and michelle and i (none / 0) (#120)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:50:35 PM EST
    will both feel much relieved when McCain gets rid of the AMT tax.  After all, it is all about us right?  lol

    I win either way.  I get a financial windfall with McCain and sensible policy with dems.  Your vote is irrelevant to me.  Now as for the seniors, the military, single parents, unemployed folks, and the environment, well they probably would prefer the sensible choice.  I can wait 4 years, especially with that awesome tax break that is so close i can taste it.

    [ Parent ]

    Which one McCains or Obama's $1,000 (none / 0) (#156)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:58:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Third Party or for Nov a major (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by nycstray on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:07:18 PM EST
    write in campaign for Hillary  ;)

    After all, the Dem Party doesn't need us . . .

    [ Parent ]

    bittnerness (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:44:41 PM EST
    no need to be bitter, after all the last 8 years have been so great for the middle class, the military, the economy, the elderly, foreign policy, oil companies.  You convinced me, I am definitely going to vote for the party that has made this country what it is today.

    Lol

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:58:01 PM EST
    I'm going to vote for the party that stood up to and fought against the majority party (the successes of all of those filibusters, blocked votes dance in my head) and then managed to get in to power, bring back accountability and turn things around.

    If you follow your own advice, you're voting independent. LOL

    [ Parent ]

    well the dem (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:00:36 PM EST
    senate has been an embarassment.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm Independent now (none / 0) (#128)
    by RalphB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:52:17 PM EST
    but 3rd party would be OK for another election.  This time around I've got to go GOP because I can't stand Obama.


    [ Parent ]
    thanks for your donation (none / 0) (#136)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:54:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I won't lose money from it either (none / 0) (#187)
    by RalphB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:04:43 PM EST
    so it's no skin off my nose, ace.  At least I can stand John McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Right now... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:44:18 PM EST
    Hillary's lead in IN is 39,000 votes. It's been gradually declining, with a few upbursts now and then (it was 37,000 a few minutes ago). It's getting kind of scary.

    Obama's lead in NC is at 146,000 right now. It's been as high as 158,000 or so.

    Obama ahead in total popular vote by 107,000.

    Clearly Hillary needs the ability to say she won Indiana, though I'd like to hold the total popular vote margin where it is now. She got about a 200,000 vote boost in PA; it'd be important to keep a fair chunk of that.

    I think Hillary will win (none / 0) (#119)
    by Faust on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:49:55 PM EST
    But with Lake county still out I'd bet money that you're looking at less than a 2% margin.

    [ Parent ]
    sorry to cross-post (5.00 / 14) (#111)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:48:55 PM EST
    this got cut off in another thread:

    STOP THE MOPE, fellow Clinton supporters!  Obama was slated to win both IN and NC a month ago.  CLINTON WILL TAKE AWAY HIS WIN.  Let me repeat: she was projected to lose both IN and NC.  Go back and look at the Obama spreadsheet.  Indiana has him up by 12!

    And NC isn't over by a long-shot.  There are still votes to count, no matter what CNN wants to tell us.  These are the f*ckers who sold us Bush and the war!  Why are we listening to them now???

    Clinton should not step down.  She should not concede.  She was supposed to lose both of these contests as of polling from two weeks ago.  Why are you guys sad-sacking now?  For the love of peeps, nothing has changed.  All these races do is tell us that there need to be more races.  When Obama was behind in polls and edged into the lead, it was all about how he had the momentum, etc.  All the soon to be win in IN and tightening in NC tell me is that she is getting the edge.

    Why on earth would you count her out now?  What has drastically changed, other than the racial demographics have gotten even more polarized?  (for the worse, and I don't mean worse for Clinton)

    Clinton isn't giving up and neither am I.  Stop your moping!  Our girl needs us now.

    It's the AA Vote (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:51:13 PM EST
    idiots can see he's likely to lose white voters by huge margins yet they blithely ignore how much damage Wright has done.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not moping (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:04:40 PM EST
    I was waiting for something a little different from tonight.... there is a swing to Clinton.  I wanted to see a bigger swing.  Obama just looks worse than ever.

    The only thing bad about tonight is waht commentors are covering from the media.  Me, I'm watching Stargate.  I still want to see a transcript of Brazile.  Oh, and the odd comments by some Obama supporters.  That's off too.  They seem as angry as ever.

    [ Parent ]

    I ain't moping (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:51:19 PM EST
    She's winning Indiana and Obama's lead in NC just got thinner.

    [ Parent ]
    My girl Tracy (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:55:44 PM EST
    I know you're not moping.  We're still pulling for our girl.  No more sad-sacking, y'all.  NOTHING has changed.  One win cancels the other, at best.  We move on and we keep winning.  I've got a Newsweek right here that says the worst case scenario is that Clinton gets IN and Obama gets NC, because that means they move on.  Well, it's not a worse case scenario for me, because we keep moving on, we keep making phone calls and doing our thing